Experience: I spent 29 years in solitary confinement (2010) | Hacker News Reader

Experience: I spent 29 years in solitary confinement (2010)

theguardian.com

132 pointsTomte100 comments

UBI + health (and other calamity) insurance for all.

A strong public mental health system.

Prescription drugs of every kind, heroin, meth, whatever. With the right counselling and support attached.

I might be an idiot but pretty sure most crime will just go away, then we can spend proper resources to help and support (and punish when needed) the few offenders who really struggle to stay within the rules of society.

There are a few genuinely 'bad people' out there. But it's vanishingly small. Most people do bad things because of their circumstances. Lets fix the root cause then we can get rid of most of the cops (i.e. the shit ones), & most of the jails.

I don't particularly want to start a debate here. I know it's not all so simple. Just dreaming.

> There are a few genuinely 'bad people' out there

Do you want to count the number of violent rapes by year? Violent premeditated murders? Lets add violent robbery and assault by people have food and a place to stay, but are looking to level up and buy shiny things?

This is not a circumstance, and there are many 'bad people' out there.

How about a legal and regulated sex industry.

I live in a country with next to no violent premeditated murders, next to no violent robbery. And a LOT of very poor people. But there is a public social safety net which you can't fall below. So no one is ever really desperate.

I understand if you're based in the US why you think this way, but it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Most of these are mental health issues. ESPECIALLY violent rape. Really every cop will tell you that vast majority of crime is not committed by some cold-blooded, well-planning, career criminals - but by mentally unstable or sick people and/or people suffering from addictions, that do ridiculous things being clearly out of sane mind. Sadly, psychiatry is really in its infancy and its success record at both diagnosis and treatment plain out sucks.

What about cold blooded well planning rapists who work as cops?

Most of these are mental health issues.

Basically, is there any "rational" reason to be a rapist AT ALL? Especially in today's world which is full of easy to get sex. I think every rapist is mentally not OK.

> Basically, is there any "rational" reason to be a rapist AT ALL?

Are you equating taking irrational actions with being mentally ill? By that logic, everyone is mentally ill.

> Especially in today's world which is full of easy to get sex.

What makes you think sex is easy to get in today’s world? The evidence would contradict that. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/202106...

> I think every rapist is mentally not OK.

Sure, but is it an illness which can be alleviated?

My own feeling is that many of these people were not born evil, but their life circumstances as children (e.g. extreme poverty or abuse by family members) set them on a bad trajectory that's quite hard to correct for in adulthood.

I think giving every child a stable home life will go a long way in reducing crime. Of course some people will slip through the cracks. But I'm in agreement with OP that the number is quite small compared to the number of people currently incarcerated.

>Do you want to count the number of violent rapes by year? Violent premeditated murders?

People do keep count of this, and the (per-capita) rate of violent crime has been falling fairly monotonically since at least the end of WW2. Our genetics haven't changed in that time, but circumstances have.

So what do you do with the violently inclined people? Put them in therapy and hope they get better?

I mean, it depends on what you mean by "violently inclined".

I'm not a sociologist, so I don't know specifically what works and what doesn't, but clearly whatever we've been doing for the last 50 years has led to a smaller percentage of children born with inherently aggressive/antisocial personalities going on to commit violent crimes as an adult.

If you're talking about adults with violent inclinations that have acted on them and committed horrific crimes, then the obvious answer is to segregate them from the rest of society as they're clearly dangerous.

It looks like we're speaking across purposes. I'm not trying to absolve rapists and murderers of blame, nor am I trying to downplay the danger they pose to the rest of us. At the same time, though we should acknowledge that violent crime seems to be a mostly-solvable problem on a population level and simply throwing up your arms and saying "bad people are bad" isn't going to push the stats down.

Some get better, some are disasters waiting to happen.

Source: Norwegians do this. It is not every day it seems but there absolutely are multiple cases each years of people with violent pasts who become violent again given the opportunity.

There are two types of prison sentences here: ordinary and "forvaring" (best translation I could come up with is "detainment") which practically means they get to serve a minimum sentence anyway but won't be released until the specialists consider them reasonably safe. Kind of close to life but with a chance of parole, only the parole is meant to be the rule, not the exception.

For now it seems to work well enough, but if the rate climbs I think they will have to make adjustments.

The comment you’re responding to suggests that implementing certain societal changes would dramatically reduce crime. Your reply completely ignores their considerations and offers the status quo, I.e. a world completely lacking the changes they mention, as a supposed counter-argument.

If only.

Health insurance for all? Agree. I’m not sold on the economics of UBI.

IMO something that I think would make a huge difference while also being realistically achievable is criminal justice reform. We cannot let prisons continue being factories for drug addicts and career criminals. There must surely be a better way than this.

UBI no one knows. Being sold or otherwise doesn't matter. Small trials here and there aren't much use. We need a country with balls to try it like Portugal did with drug policy.

So yea, I'm not sold either. No one really is until we get the hard truth. Nothing more complex (and chaotic) than society and it's economy. Good luck modelling and predicting that reliably ha!

Whilst the detractors of UBI like to paint it as automatically impossible, like breaking some fundamental law of nature, I bet the same people would have said the same things about the Covid benefit schemes. In my country people could be furloughed by their employer on 80% of their salary... and somehow we paid for it ok.

Most people's jobs are utterly pointless. Yet still, by doing these jobs the workers get money with which they can buy their portion of resources. Let's just do the same thing without the pointless and wasteful busy work.

Maybe the only thing stopping us is our cultural values dating back to the industrial revolution when workers were indoctrinated with the idea of work as virtuous.

I mostly agree with this. When I worked in the federal government, a bunch of colleagues there used to jest that it was "middle class welfare". The point being, that a huge portion of the white collar federal employees just exist to fill a billet. The number of free loaders was insane. In my experience, most operations were done by a few, and much of the extra work that was done really didn't need to happen (example: making useless one time spreadsheets with 10 rows and 4 columns filled with data that expires in the short term, embed into powerpoint, make powerpoint look pretty, email it to someone)

The government needs to pay for this. The taxes collected come from people. So a fraction of the people have to pay for UBI.

If we assume full automation and no private property, then the machines work for us now. They don't complain like Ben Shapiro that paying for the poor with your wealth/income is "stealing". Communism is a good idea on paper, but humans in general are greedy and envious. If we had unlimited resources, the machines in such a scenario could produce everything for each greedy individual. However, our resources are limited, and one greedy person wants more than the other. That's actually the main issue here. People don't want to put up with getting the same thing as everyone else. (I would put up with it, though, but I am the minority here.)

Then there is Europe or social democracies. There is actually a limited form of UBI called "public assistance". You don't have to pay anything back and it is only for those who can't support themselves.

I hope there is a flaw in my thinking here. It would make my day if you would enlighten me with your wisdom. :)

PS: I couldn't resist sharing a good parody on Ben Shapiro's character: https://youtu.be/wPgwwZ8ih3k Sorry HN, I know this is somewhat silly from me, but it is too funny. :D

Edit: For the person who downvoted my comment here. Care to share on why you did this? Please enlighten me. I don't care about karma points. I care about why you think that I am wrong. Was my first sentence the offender? I meant it in this way: For UBI, the government needs to ...

Anyhow, tell me why I am wrong and not just downvote it and leave. Explain, please! Thank you!

> People don't want to put up with getting the same thing as everyone else.

I don't think that's true for most people. Rather, people don't want to expend energy when they can get away with not doing it. Working is hard, and if you're taken care off if you don't, then a sizable part of the population won't.

I hope so. Again, I wouldn't complain about it, but there are people like Ben Shapiro, you know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ People like Ben then perhaps need to put up with it if the majority decides so. I just don't want to imagine his rage and anger...

Okay, the person who disliked my comment refused to answer why he did it. I can only guess why he did it. I suspect it is because of my silly remarks in general. Anyhow, it would be still better if you could provide me a reason, so I can get better next time. I cannot read minds you know, unknown downvoter whoever you are. Next time I will avoid being silly or making silly remarks. If this was even the offender? (However, my comment above was not entirely silly. A small part of it was.)

Edit:

Okay, I got an answer. Apparently it was because my argument was flawed. Thank you! :)

Ideally, the funds don't primarily come from other people's income, they come from corporate wealth and income (currently severely undertaxed), taxes on natural resource use (currently severely undertaxed), taxes on things we don't want like carbon emissions and other pollution (currently severely undertaxed) taxes on nonrenewable limited resources like radio spectrum usage or land usage (currently not taxed at all or nowhere near proportional to value most places), and direct wealth generation from nation-level investments (sovereign funds, resource funds). The "taxes come from people" is a common way to paint UBI as a self-defeating cycle of redistribution, but that's not how it is. Human income is a dropping fraction of total income, and human wealth is a dropping fraction of total wealth.

Thank you for your comment, Kliment. I am currently trying to see my error in thinking and fix it.

> currently severely undertaxed

Is it because companies such as Amazon are good at avoiding taxes?

> they come from corporate wealth and income

Hmm... I think this is what I don't really understand. Aren't corporations owned by a few people? So at the end the owners are paying the taxes? Can companies exist without owners (people)? (They change, I know, but can they exist without people?) I am probably to fixated on people, and perhaps I need to see companies as an own entity.

> taxes on things we don't want like carbon emissions and other pollution

Okay, so somebody and a "company" is also a somebody here, needs to pay for that? (So it is the owner at the end?)

> direct wealth generation from nation-level investments (sovereign funds, resource funds)

Okay, that makes sense. A stock is bought and sold by people, and its value increases and decreases depending on the decisions of people. However, you are right, the government owns that stock. So it belongs to all of us.

Okay, so my question essentially boils down to: Why is the owner of a company like Jeff Bezos irrelevant here? I can see this for the sovereign funds, resource funds part. However, I have trouble with the CEO part. What am I missing here? My understanding of government and taxes is wrong, perhaps. That's why I cannot see it, probably.

Taxes on corporations are paid by people. Every dollar taxed from a company is a dollar less the company is worth. For mom and pop companies, it's directly less value they have. For larger private companies, it taxes owners. For large public companies, it taxes everyone with any investment exposure, which is the vast majority of people by retirement time.

It lowers returns on pensions, which is a hidden tax on nearly everyone.

Lower capital in companies causes them to raise prices sometimes, hire less sometimes, fire more quickly in bad times, etc.

Just because you don't see how it taxes you doesn't mean you're not paying.

You expressed it better than I did. At the end it is people, but apparently we two have fundamental disagreements with OP (Kliment).

The most vocal detractors, yeah. But that's true for anything. The most vocal people are the ones that draw a hard line and refuse to budge, often choosing to scream people down instead of using actual logic or science.

That doesn't mean they're wrong, just that they aren't even attempting to put thought into it, just emotion.

You can't discount something based on it's most vocal proponents or opponents.

I'm not sure we can yet say with any confidence that "somehow we paid for it ok". The medium- to long-term consequences remain to be worked out....

UBI would be easily affordable if it was low enough. I don't know about the US but in the UK the progressive tax system means you don't pay any tax on the first £12,500. Scrap that and give it back as UBI instead then it would add up. The trouble is I don't think this is what the proponents have in mind.

Is it possible that UBI is inevitable? Machine learning is just getting started at making many jobs redundant, sooner or later it will explode. Yes, new jobs will be created too, but it's hard to imagine they will be on par with the amount lost. Those new jobs will most likely require a high level of education.

A massive wage gap and extreme poverty seems inevitable without UBI. In my personal utopian vision, I see us transitioning from a working culture to a learning culture, where personal growth is the goal.

I'm with you all the way on drug policy and prison reform. Addiction is an illness, not a crime. There's no such thing as good and evil, just cause and effect.

> We cannot let prisons continue being factories for drug addicts and career criminals

or literal factories. prison labor is not always forced, but always cheap labor and some of it even dangerous. imagine getting paid 2$ a day to fight CA's wildfires

Even worse than that $2 is that they can’t get hired as firefighters once they are out, due to felony record

Your comment ignores the most obvious problems in the system. First this guy had his conviction overturned, he was innocent, and he claims his sentence was politically motivated. Second, this type of solitary confinement is inhumane and unecessary.

Yes, it would be great to improve the quality of life for prospective criminals, but we don't need to set the bar as high as UBI, we could start by having a fair and sympathetic penal system.

It's been my experience around the world that about 99% of people are honest for the most part and won't rob or harm you. But... that means there's that 1% who _will_. I think no matter what, that 1% will exist (this is just a gut feeling).

That means in the US alone, there are ~3.3 million people roaming around that will rob, steal, murder, rape, and do other horrible things. At a peak, 2.3 million were in prison so I don't think that number is too far off.

Yes, I understand the complexities of this. Yes, I know many of those people are in prison for drug related offenses. I'm not here to debate any of that, it's a complex issue and I'm generalizing big time.

It's just to point out that, the 1% thing probably has some truth to it based on real data.

That’d be “data” if the American prison system was just. But it isn’t.

>It's just to point out that, the 1% thing probably has some truth to it based on real data.

Quite the opposite.

Rates of violent crime vary by orders of magnitude from one society to the next, and have reduced dramatically over time within most societies in the developed world with no indication that we've reached the bottom.

> It's been my experience around the world that about 99% of people are honest for the most part and won't rob or harm you. But... that means there's that 1% who _will_. I think no matter what, that 1% will exist (this is just a gut feeling).

Yes, those tend to be referred to as the 1%.

Exactly, biker gangs even wear a 1% patch. Which means, they're part of that 1%.

I think we should absolutely do all of that, for more reasons than just reducing crime.

Specifically talking about crime though, I think it becomes diminishing returns. Some countries in Western Europe are not a million miles from that ideal and still have a non-negligible crime rate and homelessness rate.

Mental health support is probably the biggest thing missing, at least in part because we (as a planet) are quite bad at treating it. I expect (and hope) that that's the area that will have the biggest advances in medical treatment over the next couple of decades.

Plus there's organized crime, white-collar crime, etc; you could get just about enough to keep your head above water, yes, but what if you could become rich instead?

I think people understimate the impact on mental health caused by the absence of social safety nets.

Provide UBI and health services and a lot of anxiety might go away.

Remove the need to toil in a bad workplace and a lot of depression might go away.

I think you might mean “underestimate”?

Thank you. Fixed.

Bingo

The man in the article was a political prisoner punished for joining the Black Panthers. It doesnt really have to do with crime unoess you count the crime of abusing the justice system for political purposes.

Thomas Sowell would disagree on some points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERj3QeGw9Ok

But I don't live in America:).

I don't think there's anything wrong with starting a debate.

Rehabilitation is one of those code words that polls well, but I am skeptical it exists. In reality it usually just means 'addiction treatment' (which seldom works) and there isnt really a good analogy for crimes that are not drug related. Just for my own clarity, what exactly constitues rehabilitation for eg. someone who embezzles?

The second issue is that it seems to focus on preventing additional crime, but punishment is about preventing crime before it happens. Just proving 'I would never do it again' isn't really the point, we want to prevent crimes from ever happening.

Your theory seems to be that most people are inherently good and wouldn't do crime just because if their nature. I think that is fundamentally wrong, and I can prove it.

All you need to do is examine situations in which people were suddenly put in situations where they knew they were unlikely to receive punishment: and crime explodes.

There were millions of rapes commited by soldiers against German women during the occupation following world war 2. My guess is most of the perpetrators never raped again--they went home and were otherwise normal citizens. Had they not been given the opportunity to get away with it, they would not have done it.

I sort if see this akin to the Milgram experiment. You probably think you wouldn't shock the man--and maybe you wouldn't--but our studies suggest most people would.

I don't disagree with our premise against people being inherently good. I personally don't think that a universal basic income will solve all the problems that its proponents think it will solve.

But I don't think your example about rape in occupied Germany is a great example. The citizens of the Soviet Union suffered greatly, and it is estimated that about 26 million of them died during WW2. I have no doubt that the minds of those soldiers were filled with thoughts of rage and revenge, and probably felt that the perpetrators of the war somehow deserved it.

> There are a few genuinely 'bad people' out there. But it's vanishingly small.

70 million people voted for Donald Trump.

If you think half of the USA are genuinely bad people you desperately need to go outside.

If you think that 70 million people is half of the USA, you desperately need some contact with facts.

I certainly appreciate dreaming, but you are missing domestic violence[0], the I want shiny thing effect, rape[1], jalousy murder and all traffic violations, which are probably going to be worse when drugs are more freely available.

Some of that may be solvable by only making UBI availabel to nonfellons, or keep people in prison until we are pretty sure they won't commit any crimes[3]

[0]: alcohol makes this a worse problem, but it is not the only thing that causes it. [1]: it is almost always easier to hire a prostitute, if this was about sex. [3]: you will have ended nearly all non serious crimes, meaning that those who do commit crimes will be really bad people.

> A strong public mental health system.

I think you missed this point maybe.

I urge anyone touched by this to learn about the prison abolition movement. My favorite thinker on the matter is Angela Davis. She was wrongly imprisoned for over a year in the 1971-1972 which called attention to political prisoners the world over. After a global call for her release she was acquitted of the charges and released. She became a college professor and a prolific author, and is still today a highly respected representative of the prison abolition movement.

We do not need to treat human beings this way, and every day that goes on is yet another tragedy. Prison abolition is not widely understood, and Angela Davis's work is a great way to learn more about it.

There is a remarkable hour long interview of her from 1970 while she was imprisoned which you can watch on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrSIm2RXN4o&list=PLP0dfLFk-a...

Here is a nice looking hour long lecture that was recorded more recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q25-KJ55k_0

To learn more about Angela Davis read this bio:

https://womenshistory.si.edu/news/2020/06/angela-daviss-impr...

Or read one of her books on the matter. But if you aren't familiar or prison abolition seems weird, click one of these links and learn a little more. No person should ever endure what prisoners in the US face on a daily basis.

+1 to Angela Davis recommendation.

In a similar vein please read “I am Troy Davis”, a truly moving account of a terrible fate.

Don't forget her book "Are Prisons Obsolete?"

https://www.amazon.com/Are-Prisons-Obsolete-Angela-Davis/dp/...

Simple answer, no they are not. There are people that need to be locked up to protect society. Think Breivik, or the psychopaths that eradicate whole families for their perverted pleasure.

That being said, prisons as a punishment seem to scale very badly. I think that a prison sentence up to maybe a year or so is a very effective deterrent against crimes like tax evasion, theft, fraud, or domestic violence (if it is charged, that is). But beyond that, it seems to stop working.

So the question is: Do we want to give up on the punishment part? Do we want to introduce even more draconian measures?

> So the question is: Do we want to give up on the punishment part? Do we want to introduce even more draconian measures?

If you read the book then you'd know that's what it's about. The title is written under the premise that prisons without punishment (and all their other negative qualities) are not prisons. It's a critique of prisons in the real world, not some abstract idea of prisons.

The book's actually online [1] if $6.68 is too much.

1. https://collectiveliberation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/...

Prisons actually bundle punishment (which seems especially effective and worthwhile for shorter sentences) and isolation/protection (keeping criminals locked up even for longer timespans and thus literally preventing them from reoffending, which actually seems to be the key factor wrt. such longer sentences). So "prisons without punishment" could still be worthwhile and protect us from the most serious crimes. In many ways, being a prison inmate is punishment enough and the focus beyond that should very much be on rehabilitation that can benefit both the inmate and society as a whole.

For those kinds of people, why not death? Quick and easy.

Somehow keeping them in solitary like absolute animals is more humane?

The reason usually given by people (and even argued in liberal political philosophy) is that the possibility of wrongfully killing someone is not worth it. It's considered not only an injustice to the individual but also harms others effected by the loss of the person.

I agree, but I tend to think life imprisonment can be as bad or worse. Imprisoning someone for life is in many places simply torture, so we're wrongfully torturing someone for the remainder of their life instead while the effects on others can't be that much less, in fact it could prolong their suffering.

The question you have to answer in order to form your opinion is: Given that you are charged with a crime that you did not commit, would you rather serve life in prison (especially given the chance it could be a nightmare prison) or get the death penalty? Personally, I'd take the latter, as I see the former as torture.

Yeah, same. Life in prison just doesn't make sense to me, it's worthless at best and torture at worst. Just put a bullet in my head and be done with it.

Also, is it possible that Breivik for example was wrongfully convicted? Something tells me the answer is "no".

This is Hackernews. The acceptable answer is: there's no such thing as evil, and criminals are just people underserved by social programs, so there is no justifiable reason to punish anyone.

"They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison."

--Angela Davis on Czech opponents to the communist regime

Seems her opposition to prisons was a bit... selective.

Czech here. Yes, Angela Davis was a huge icon for our totalitarian regime. Yes, our dissidents petitioned her to support them in their plight. Yes, she stayed silent.

Double standards are everywhere.

> her opposition to prisons was a bit... selective.

So we can be selective in picking from her writings and opinions the things that work. One doesn't have to reject all of a person's work once one discovers that they are flawed human beings.

For instance, Francis Galton was in favour of some rather unpleasant social ideas (eugenics) but we would be the poorer if we rejected his contributions to statistical methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton#Innovations_in_...

It’s quite disheartening to read this thread, and how the mainstream on HN think they can centrally plan their way out of society’s problems (like UBI), and who excuse communists like this. As if you could just will incorruptible and truly just and virtuous people into government leadership roles, rather than self selected quacks and sophists, who are attracted by power.

> rather than self selected quacks and sophists, who are attracted by power.

Like all current politicians?

Yes

Exactly. Which is why I'm happy that they have limited powers.

Yes, quite. The idea behind liberal democracy (and, more extremely, libertarianism) is to design government in such a way that politicians can't accumulate too much power. Depending on your political worldview, this concern may trump the benefits that are thought to accrue from handing power to the government and thus the politicians.

> Depending on your political worldview

Depending on whether people know the history of Eastern Europe in the 20th century

The very same Angela Davis who on 8/5/1970 bought the shotgun that was used to blow Judge Harold Haley's head off two days later?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3UiyuqVUAE816j?format=jpg

She maintained her innocence and was eventually found not guilty on all counts.

> A defense motion for a change of venue was granted, and the trial was moved to Santa Clara County. On June 4, 1972, after 13 hours of deliberations, the all-white jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The fact that she owned the guns used in the crime was judged insufficient to establish her role in the plot.

John Lennon and Yoko Ono in support of her though. [1]

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBpcm-DtN0Q

To everybody interested in all this I will strongly recommend Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage. Too few know just how much left-wing terrorism there was during that time, how much they got away with, and just how much support they got from mainstream society.[0]

Lennon came to regret much of his left-wing activism later in life.

[0] Cf. Tom Wolfe’s Radical Chic: https://nymag.com/news/features/46170/

So you knew knowing she bought the shotgun but you didn't know she was acquitted? Or were you just hoping no one else did?

You seem to have an agenda here, trying to find any way to undermine the left.

I’m familiar with the details of the case, tyvm. Wrongful verdicts happen all the time. Especially when there’s enormous social pressure and polarization, then and now.

The left (or progressivism, really) does not need my help undermining itself—it’s just that it’s a painfully slow slide down and I’d rather see something else during my lifetime and for my descendants.

If you have descendents, perhaps being on the side of the people who want to increase pollution and carbon dioxide output is not a good idea?

I'm not an American, but the Right there seems to be actually mentally ill - not an insult, I mean they sound like crazy homeless people screaming incoherently in the street.

Listened to multiple Republicans like Boebert lauding the Taliban and the deafening silence from the rest of you makes your stance pretty clear...

Meanwhile, Guantanamo Bay will soon celebrate its 20th birthday as a detention center. All of its prisoners are there without trial or even formal accusation. And they are not only in solitary confinement but many have been tortured as well.

Here is this year's Amnesty report: https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA_-R...

Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in Belmarsh prison to disclose the war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan!

Speaks a lot about the vindictive nature of states.

Instead of accepting feedback and criticism from the population, they attempt to suppress dissent.

A society is only as strong as the connections between its citizens.

Initially I thought this was in the country Angola, and thought how poor human rights must be there. How naive of me.

Here is more context and updates since 2010: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola_Three

I recently had to spend 14 days locked in a hotel room alone as mandatory quarantine to enter Australia.

Shockingly (for me), after just 14 days I already felt more comfortable inside the room than out, and I got a real glimpse into what being "institutionalized" means. Life was so simple and not scary, it was enjoyable, in a sick kind of way. I couldn't imagine what coming out after an entire year would be like, let alone 29.

I'm beginning to really dislike the downvote button. This seems like a perfectly reasonable comment so what purpose is served by fading it out?

Spending two weeks in a hotel room with all the amenities you can imagine (Contact to your beloved ones, television, internet access) is in no way comparable to solitary confinement, especially given the short time and the fact that you know when it will end. The gp comment is incredibly tone deaf.

I disagree that its tone deaf. Most of the comments here are talking about prisons. In prison inmates get television, board games, telephone access, recreational activities, visits, and more. It's on the same topic most everyone is discussing.

As for solitary confinement, no one gets assigned there directly. There would have to be a specific and documented reason, in this day and age particularly, why someone is placed there after ending up in a prison.

Some people are really against people trying to empathize with an incredibly bad situation after having gone through a slightly-bad situation that has some parallels. They insist that it's nothing like that and will scream down anyone who tries to care based on their own experience.

IMO, it's incredibly harmful for the the cause and instead of shouting them down, they should just turn away and ignore them.

OTOH, if they were trying to use that experience to downplay the problem, it's perfectly fine to talk to them about why they're wrong, but civilly.

This happens so often on here, these extreme downvotings of otherwise normal comments, that I'm convinced this is the product of bots or some other manipulation. I don't think the karma means anything on this board.

If putting every rapist in solitary confinement prevented a single rape, it would be unethical to not do so.

These sorts of articles come out a lot. I think they gain traction because people conflate the wrong ng conviction with the harshness of the punishment. Note how almost always it's about innocent people suffering, but presented as a human rights abuse innehich case their guilt should be irrelevant.

The courts have a problem with arbitrariness and wrong convictions. I think that's the real issue, and people are conflating that with the human rights debate around punishment itself.

It would be unethical if in the process we also put innocent people in solitary confinement (or even in non-solitary prison), which we do currently.

Then it seems like all punishment is unethical.

First off, yes we should deal with mental health and with poverty.

But second, many years ago, I worked with a guy on the lam, who had murdered family members. He had a stable white-collar job before he killed the family members, he had a stable blue-collar job where he ended up, he had no drug dependencies that I ever heard of. It was a good twenty years after I had worked with him that the authorities caught up with him, and it all showed up in the newspapers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com